As animal advocates, many of us may have conflicted feelings about the “employment” of companion animals such as dogs in roles of human service. While many dogs find themselves in working roles based on their circumstances, some dogs who are bred for work may end up also living as a domestic companion. Some may perform dual roles, “perhaps working during the week and being a companion on weekends,” and yet others may be employed in private industries almost exclusively. This diversity of contexts for working dogs has “led to fragmented public perceptions of working and sporting dogs,” and animal advocates’ opinions are similarly fragmented. In this study, researchers wanted to better understand how working dog industries are “sustainable.” Their research shows that sustainability is defined, at least in part, profit motive.

First and foremost, the researchers note that using service dogs is generally done “for reasons of economy, ease or ability; either humans or machines cannot do the task, or it is cheaper or easier for a dog to do it.” Still, training a dog can be an expensive and time-consuming process with no guarantee of success. The “success rates” average about 50% across working dog sectors, which means that, in the researcher’s words, “around half of all dogs being bred, or considered to work or race, fail to become operational.” This is obviously a poor success rate and it affects the bottom line.

From there, the researchers delved into territory that will be hard for nearly all companion animal advocates to stomach. Specifically, the article focuses on how the performance of working dogs can be increased through breeding programs, and that this “better breeding” will also improve public perception of working dogs. The authors highlight various tools relating to “canine performance science” and hypothesize that specialized breeding would improve training and likewise improve the success rate of working dogs.

Although this paper is not necessarily pro-animal, it does underscore the tension that exists in working dog industries. Perhaps most importantly, the article fails to ask a pivotal question: is an ethical “working dog industry” even possible when profit is the motive?